Has anyone considered the imlications of the DDA 1995 on their business (particularly from a viewpoint of CSR's trying to establish whether the customer requires any special assistance with information being sent out).

For example a customer who calls to ask for information to be sent out who at application stage had informed us was partially sighted. The CSR has no information on this and at present may simply request the standard forms be issued when large print versions would have been more appropriate.

Any shared experiences/opinions would be welcomed. Has anyone introduced any manner of question within their scripts to elicit this information?

As this can be an emotive subject this has to be treated with extreme delicacy. Has anyone tried and tested any approaches that have worked (or failed)?

Hi Mark,

Excellent topic! I've added this to the 'Editor's Choice' topics as I feel it's an area which needs to be discussed and given careful thought, especially in today's world of equal opportunity.

Much of the alleged 'discrimination' with regard to individuals' disabilities is less a conscious act than a lack of foresight. Modern legislation has been put in place to raise the awareness of such things within those that make the decisions as to how everyday 'life-transactions' are formulated. It is very important to provide mechanisms to assist those who find difficulties in performing routine 'life-transactions' (whether by dint of disability or inability). One problem, of course, is that the number of people who require these mechanisms is relatively small and therefore lower down the list of priorities than things like my oft-mentioned 'bottom line'.

Like Mark, I'd be very keen to find out how disabilities are handled within your workplace, both from the perspective of customer and also from the perspective of the employer- in other words, does your organisation have a healthy, pro-active disability policy.

Open to the floor!

John

How curious that no one has picked up on this especially given that new regulations have now been finalised and published as The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment) Regulations (SI 2003/1673) but do not come into force until 1 October 2004.

The onus is now very much on the employer to accomodate and very few defences are admissable.

Mark and John ask if anyone has encountered implications/experiences. For my part working with various companies I find frequently the company has a policy and publishes it as part of its ISO9001, H&S, Equal Opp and Diversity policy however thats all they do publsih it. Those on the ground (Team managers, leaders, ops personnel) seem to have little awareness of its implications and the provision they MUST make. I believe this is due to lack of education on the subject.

For the most part the more robust dedicated call centres most especially in Financial Services have well developed HR policies on all the above issues and ensure all knowledge regarding Race Relations Act, Disabilities Act, Human Rights Act et all are well distributed and actively promote their implementation and awareness. This is generated by a strongly established HR department and a top down buy in from management, although it has to be said it may partly be due to the number of incidents and industrial tribunals that these large muti-nationals have met to their cost.

HR departments are frequently aware of the issues and in my experience do not discriminate in their recruitment processes on any legal grounds.
For my part I have recruited many wheelchair bound candidates, who usually simply want to know about access issues, as well as a deaf person to work in call centre. How deaf they were I do not know, we simply adapted the comptency based role play; having established that volume was the issue and not comprehension we dispensed with the telephones and conducted it back to back with me raising my voice. We were concerned that the agency who send this employee did not inform us for two reasons 1. To save the employee having to notify us and 2. To ensure were had made provision within the assessment day and didnt unecessarily delay the candidate. We accomodated (of course - its law !) but for the sake of telling us it would have saved everyone extra time and effort with better preparation.
The employee was accepted and last I heard was doing well. Needless to say ops telephonic equipment was obligingly adapted to ensure the employee was comfortable.
I also have experience of using minicom and the deaf intermediary service to aid an inbound call. I havent found the issues to be emotive or sensitive, the disabled person is frequently aware of the employer's obligations and treats it level headedly, focussing on the solution not the obstacles, as a we all treat as subject when we know what the other end are obliged to deliver.

One of the most inoffensive questions to ask as an employer is "What can can we make you comfortable?"

Does anyone else have any experiences or indeed have they adapted to an inbound/outbound call?

As operations manager of a small outbound arts marketing firm, we made many attempts to actively recruit workers with disabillities, as it seems that a contact centre role is ideally suited to people with reduced mobility for example. The non-geographic nature of contact centres means that start-ups are in a position to proactively target areas of social and economic development.

We went down the route of council organisations set up to help place disabled people, but were supprosed to be sent only one persons details for consideration. Having made it clear that the role was for a telephone fundraiser for arts charities, we were somewhat supprised that the only candidate was severly deaf, with related speach impediments (I kid you not I promise). Although we constantly informed the agency of opportunites as they arose, we failed to attract any more candidates. The agency stated there were no suitable applicants in the disabled community, which in central oxford I find very difficult to accept.

For companies who wish to proactively ensure positions are available to disabled workers, it is worth noting that funding is available for structural work such as access, lifts, hygein facilities etc. as the cost of converting out of date premises is often prohibitive especially to small businesses.

It is important that contact centres recognise the employment opportunity they present to disabled people, and indedeed many disadvantaged parts of the community and to proactively seek to provide employemnt in areas where they can have a positive social and economic impact. The act should not be seen as something to deal with and work around, but as an opportunity to assess our ability to make a difference.

Dylan,

>>we were somewhat supprised that the only candidate was severly deaf, with related speach impediments (I kid you not I promise).

I offer an explanation; did the candiate see the advert and express and interest and was educationally qualified for the role, if such then whatever disabilities the agency were obliged to send him/her and your co was legally obliged to assess him/her. - justification DDA.

Deafness isnt the issue here, as an employer you would be legally obliged to adapt your processes/equipment to accomodate him/her. From your example I believe that the only lawful grounds for declination would be communication wise, specifically his/her speech and its incomprehensibility. This would be precisely consistent with assessing a candidate without disabilities. the candidate must not be disadvantaged in any way with regards to seeking a job, selection processes, or any other process they might come across.

I might be wrong but I'm just trying to offer some light on the process, what did your HR dept say?

Mark

I may be over simplifying the view, but the guy was deaf! We are not talking "hard of hearing" we are not saying "needed a really strong hearing aid" - the guy was completely deaf. There is no technology that I am aware of that would have madde him capable of hearing the responses on the phone. The associated speach impediment, having been born deaf, mean that there is no technology that I am aware of which would have made him intelligable. The only way we could have employed him in a contact role is if he spoke sign language to an enterpreter who then acted as translator and made the calls.

I watched a programme the other night about a thalidomide who wanted to be a "Ultimate Fighting" cage fighter. When his trainer went to the organisers and asked he be allowed to fight he was told "with the greatest respect... he's got no arms!"

There needs to be an element of reallity involved here. I do not blame the individual, but surely a goverment agency's time would be better spent being frank with potential candidates and steering them towards reallistic opportunities, helping them to manage their expectations. I also cannot believe that there were no suitable disabled candidates, which suggests misdirected focus from the agency, as they failed to turn up any further applications.

Dylan,

>>>The only way we could have employed him in a contact role is if he spoke sign language to an enterpreter who then acted as translator and made the calls.

Then you are discriminating - equal access means exactly that you cannot discriminate just because the person is deaf, its against the law. There are solutions as you have identified, there may even be subsidies to help or other roles available.

I refer you to the Disbility Rights Commission wesite;

>>>By far the most common business argument given by managers employing disabled people is that it enables them to secure the best person for the job. Making adjustments to meet the requirements of disabled employees is seen as common sense and sound business practice.

It is important that your recruitment and employment practices maximise the opportunity to attract and keep disabled people, as well as ensuring that you comply with the law.

Job descriptions/Person specification


A first step is to look at the job description/person specification for the vacant post. Check that it only includes requirements which are clearly related to the duties - otherwise a disabled applicant may be deterred from applying or be inadvertently discriminated against in the selection process.

Do not be too specific about "how" the task or duty can be achieved.

A good approach is to focus on what the job is to accomplish. Including unnecessary - or marginal - requirements in a job specification can lead to discrimination.

Example: A company requires that employees visit customers in their own homes within a local area, and decides to limit recruitment to people who can drive. This could be discriminatory, as it would exclude disabled people who, as a result of their impairment, are unable to drive.

---------------------------------------------------

Disability Discrimination Act Part II - Employment Provisions
The employment provisions apply to employers with 15 or more employees. The provisions, including those that require employers to consider making changes to the physical features of premises that they occupy, have been in force since December 1996.
There are two ways in which an employer might unlawfully discriminate against a disabled employee or job applicant:

************************************************************************
by treating him or her less favourably (without justification) than other employees or job applicants because of his or her disability, or
*************************************************************************

by not making reasonable adjustments (without justification


--------------------------------------------------------------
You may also find these websites useful
http://www.drc-gb.org/businesses/bizdetails.asp?id=43&title=ep
http://www.disability.gov.uk/dda/index.html

>>>There needs to be an element of reality involved here.

Not so, legality comes first with reagrd to the DDA.

>>>>which suggests misdirected focus from the agency, as they failed to turn up any further applications.

Not so, they were functioning as the law dictates.

Hope this helps.

Mark

You do seem to take thinks literally, you couldn't sue a call centre for refusing to employ deaf people that's just ridiculous.

"Then you are discriminating - equal access means exactly that you cannot discriminate just because the person is deaf, its against the law"

There is such a thing as common sense, that's like saying you would have to give an armless person a job in a packing plant even though it would be impossible for them to do the job.

Marc

OK I understand what you are saying and the example above does appear extreme however that is the law.

I'll try a different tack, I've used the facts and reasoning - even re-iterated the law as it stands.

(softens voice, smiles, speaks gently - not patronising just trying to improve empathy).

What I think perhaps you are doing is making the disability the reason for the rejection - that is the definition of discrimination, whether it be disability, race, gender, religious belief etc. "You cant have the job because of your disability" - whatever that may be is discriminating. If the person was 10% blind and your ejected them on the grounds of blindness would that be acceptable? No. 20% blind? No 100% blind. No again. If you rejected them because their wheelchair took up too much room (i.e. their disability) would that be acceptable? No. If they had a smaller wheelchair or used crutches. No. My point is that the disability mustn't be the reason for declination (DDA rules not mine).

How does this work in the real world. Be practical I hear you yell. In the case of the example quoted legal grounds for rejection would be that his/her speech is incomprehensible or cultural fit grounds. But why the bloke/woman cant hear ! That's again making the disability the issue, when recruiting we recruit abled people not on their ability to hear but their listening/speaking skills. This is measured by confirming, recalling information, questioning, empathetic statements, clarity, speed, acknowledgements, energy, tone etc all of which indicate how well as person is listening and to some degree speaking. Thus you have used the same measure for able and disabled and everyone including the DDA is happy.

"Yeah, but..but..."

Lets look at an airline pilot who is blind. Would it be air to deny him/her the job if they were in a wheelchair? No? 10% deaf? No 100% deaf? No. Blind? No. Not on the grounds of the disability alone.
All safety issues aside (that's another legal argument) there would be a strong case that his/her blindness would impair reaction times, limit ability to spot objects, limit ability to react to instruments thus severely impact the job. Its not the blindness that's the issue its the reaction times. What if he/she were colour blind. It happens already, its not the colour blindness that is sighted as the issue but the inability to distinguish various objects. Whta if the didnt know they were colour blind and were then rejected on that basis? What do we say? Hard luck. In this instance it is measures and tested (the same process for all people) and a friend of mine was rejected on that basis, he was however assessed fairly and was not discriminated against as a sole reason of his disability.

I do understand where you are coming from and it seems extreme (only in these specific cases) but discrimination is exactly that its about broadening perception and seeing beyond the disability/issue. Should a Jewish person not be allowed to work in a pork butchers? Should a disabled person not be allowed to be a cab driver? A woman not be allowed to become and engineer? You see how far we have come on discrimination issues?

>>>you couldn't sue a call centre for refusing to employ deaf people that's just ridiculous.

You certainly could, people have been denied university places on the grounds of access and the building inaccessibility and I'm sure you'd agree that's wrong. Why should someone not have the same advantages as able bodied? This is what discrimination is. I'm not taking things literally I'm merely asserting the law in the UK as it stands. Please check with your HR dept, read the law, look elsewhere.

Of course in reality most potential disabled applicants have a strong awareness of the implications of their disabilities and often chose not to apply for positions that rely heavily on skills at which they may be weak, however I would defend their legal right to do so if they wish.

Please believe me I'm not trying to bang a drum here and it took me a while to realise how far discrimination goes, what it means in practice and its impact on the disabled person however I'm pleased I adjusted my thinking. I now do my utmost not to disadvantage disabled applicants whenever I come across them diring recruitment/training always making sure the disability isnt the issue and the candidate is comfortable with the process and environment. I think its a worthy and extremely noble Act and one that makes the world a more equitable place.

FYI.

The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 and the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, comes into force on 2 December 2003 means discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, religion or belief is also unlawful.

Croner identify that 75% of employers are unprepared for the implications of these regulations.

You're gonna love this one Marc. If I decide to follow the Klingon religion and decide I need to do some observance at work you are probably required to "make it so" and accomodate my wishes.

Its probably more enjoyable to become a Jedi, flowing capes and light sabres in the call centre could really liven it up. "What's that you say oh master? 6,000 calls in the queue...use the force".

Laugh I nearly legislated myself.

At the risk of starting this all off again, as entertaining as some of the extremes of examples have been, the following link to the Disability Rights Commission gives some practical examples of what is and is not considered reasonable.

http://www.drc-gb.org/businesses/bizdetails.asp?id=51&title=ep

Regarding religions at work the following press release from the Equal Opportunities Commission may provide soem realistic information:

http://www.eoc.org.uk/EOCeng/EOCcs/News/23_oct_seb.asp

Personally I think it is appalling that there needs to be legislation for such basic rights, but unfortunately there will always be people who won't do the right thing just because it is right, but only because they are required to.

I think because Call Centres are relatively new enterprises, blatant discrimination on the grounds of eg race and sex are not so common, but none of us need think too far back in other industries especially for a completely different story.

I know people who were amazed that I did not give up my job when I got married three years ago and felt it was reasonable to say this to me.

Okay getting off soap box now

Z x

Definition of 'religion or religious belief' as being 'any religion, religious belief or similar philosophical belief'. This does not include any philosophical or political belief unless that belief is similar to a religious belief. In deciding what is a religion or religious belief, consideration may be given to the following: collective worship, clear belief system or belief affecting the way of life.

Jedi's are in ! Confused dont be oh master.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=297&Pos=&ColRank=2&Rank=1000

With some misgivings, I'll weigh in on this subject...

First, I disclaim any knowledge **whatsoever** of UK law.

However, I can speak with some **indirect** experience, as I have a close friend who worked for the equivalent to the UK Disability Rights Commission (or, more precisely, a similar Commission whose mandate included enforcing Disability Rights, among other rights).

It seems to me that Ms. Edmonds is on the right track, in referring the curious to http://www.drc-gb.org/businesses/bizdetails.asp?id=51&title=ep

According to my friend, most of the 'litigation' on disability rights concerns "failure to make a reasonable adjustment". (In the jurisdiction in which my friend worked, the terminology was "failure to make reasonable accomodation", but this is probably a distinction without a difference.)

Once employers have general knowledge that 'rights to non-discrimination on the ground of disability' exist, few are so dimwitted as to blatantly tell a candidate, "we will not hire you because you are X". Far more often, one sees "the adjustments we would have to make to hire you simply are not reasonable."

So, obviously, what's reasonable at one point in time may not be reasonable in another.

If the position is as a customer contact agent in a call centre for someone with (let's say, total) hearing impairment, the real issues become:

"how expensive would effective speech recognition software and a VDT be, relative to how much this employee would earn for the call centre?"
"will the government pay for it, or do we have to?"
"can we afford it?"
"does it actually work? Will the candidate be able to perform at something resembling the standard of the other employees?"

So you would have one answer in 2003, and probably a totally different one in 2008, because the cost of the technology declines over time.

As the text on the DRC site points out:

"The DDA lists a number of factors which may, in particular, have a bearing on whether it will be reasonable for the employer to have to make a particular adjustment - these are:
-how effective adjustment is in preventing the disadvantage
-how practical it is
-the financial and other costs of the adjustment and the extent of any disruption caused
-the extent of the employer's financial or other resources
-the availability to the employer of financial or other assistance to help make the adjustment."

Equally important, several other factors ought to be considered.

The DDA probably specifies a maximum fine to be paid by non-compliant employers, possibly coupled with "specific performance" remedies (i.e., pay $X and reinstate so-and-so). So, there are at least three perspectives one could take:

1. If the maximum fine is below the cost of compliance, we will not comply. We will litigate both liability and the amount of the fine, and delay paying it as long as possible in the hope that the candidate or the DRC will give up. In the end we will pay the fine, and pay the candidate 'heart balm' money to go away and shut his or her mouth about our behaviour.

2. We will make reasonable adjustment, precisely because it IS reasonable, i.e., cost effective, and lets us hire and retain people that we otherwise could not, thus benefiting our bottom line.

3. We will make reasonable adjustment, because "it's the right thing to do", and market ourselves (loudly) as a 'caring' employer. (In our cynical moments, we will admit, privately, that such a reputation would lower our HR costs.)

I would say that the 'hue-and-cry' over this issue is somewhat overblown. Most 'human rights'legislation that I have seen has 'holes you could drive a lorry through'. If, for some reason, you do not want to comply with it, even a half-drunk and semi-competent solicitor should be able to explain to you how to "avoid liability". These kinds of statutes are more hortatory than anything else-- they are 'about' signaling that 'our' collective attitude is supposed to be that discriminating against disabled people is bad and you should not do it.

The real irritants, in my view, with these kinds of regimes are twofold:

1. They foster a collective attitude of plaintive entitlement-- a nation of whiners.

This is NOT because there are not genuinely disabled people who should not have to deal with unjustified discrimination. I've worked extensively with visually, neurologically and hearing-impaired people who really should benefit from a collective change in peoples' attitudes.

It is because the boundaries of "disability" are nearly impossible to define. Virtually everyone with some trivial complaint can don the mantle of injured dignity and press for special treatment that they frankly do not deserve. "Soft tissue" back injuries, in particular, are easy to manufacture with the connivance of sympathetic doctors. Cash payouts for "injured feelings" are particularly pernicious-- my pretence to wounded dignity becomes your financial obligation.

2. They amount to one more in the already long list of 'hidden taxes'. Rather than, say, spending the money to subsidize workplaces that make efforts to "adjust", one creates yet another government bureaucracy, with it's vested-interest clan of bureaucrats, to push paper back and forth and argue at hearings. Instead of doing something useful with the money (pay people to sell products, pay people to solve problems for customers, pay people to install technology that lets more people work productively), one elects to create more bureaucratic burden on productive industries. Does anyone seriously imagine that if every workplace in the UK was to become DDA-compliant tomorrow, the DRC would disappear?

Whilst we are on the subject of taking this to extremes, you may find the following link useful, enlightening or simply infuriating.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3252700.stm

Mark